Multi-classing

Synbios

That's the best part about being in Targossas: none of that mostly-class-based House systems that were offshoots of Guilds. 

Blujixapug

Sarapis said:

The reason Houses can't let whoever they want in has nothing to do with roleplay: It's a purely OOC mechanic that doesn't even make any sense. Why couldn't an organization simply let in whoever it wants? There's nothing ICly stopping Houses doing it, only a mechanic with transparent OOC motivations behind its implementation.

That OOC mechanic was created after several years of Houses being able to let in whoever they wanted led to every House letting in the same people (every neutral class + every faction class). As House leaders had no pressure or encouragement to adapt their tenets to strong, distinguishing concepts, and because as guilds they had defined themselves only by their single skillset, their identities were diluted by their new class pool. The distinctions between Houses became arbitrary. The motivation behind the mechanic may have been transparently OOC, but it was a reaction to a problem that - it was decided at the time - needed solving.

I encourage you not to dismiss the mechanic of admin-imposed House multiclass restrictions, but to go back and look at the circumstances and problems that arose after multiclass was first implemented, so that similar problems with this new system can be pre-emptively avoided.

Triak said:

So to expand further for those worried about class identity.  Your class has nothing to do with you as a character, your identity you created through your roleplay does. [...] Your class is just your profession.

Nonsense. Classes involve certain themes. Priests have themes of healing, defending, the righteousness of the Gods. Serpents have themes of sneakiness and outlaw practises. Knights have themes of honour, nobility, the paragons or vanguards of whatever organisation they represent. Not every individual of a class will embrace these themes, but the connotations are there to be drawn from.

Classes permit certain activities. You cannot commune with Nature unless you are a druid, sentinel, or sylvan. You cannot perform necromancy unless you are an infernal or apostate. Knights forge weapons and armour, and train falcons. Sentinels summon woodland creatures. Monks attack with their fists and feet. Occultists travel beyond reality to conduct business with horrifying aberrations. These activities influence character identity.

This is a good thing. Distinguishing characteristics are a good thing.

This is evidenced int he real world every day.  Sarapis said it pretty clearly.  He might of developed a text mud and work on them all the time, but that doesn't mean it defines his life.   You can easily change jobs 10 times in your life, but that doesn't mean you  change as a person every time along with it.

Real-world comparisons are almost never valid because the metaphor begins to break down immediately. But, I'll dive in.

One 9-to-5 office job is similar to the next. But in the real world, if you are an astronaut, if you're a wildlife ranger protecting rhinos and elephants from poachers, if you're a drug kingpin, if you're a secret agent, if you're an Olympic marathon runner, if you're a deep-sea fisherman, if you're a soldier on deployment, if you're a trapeze artist, if you're a movie star, all of those things absolutely have a huge impact on your life and your character.

In Achaea, you play one of those larger-than-life characters: an adventurer. Not one of the regular goons running a cabbage stall, or doing accounting for the Imperiate.

House identity.
This is something that I am truly passionate about as I feel like the current system is beyond broken and hampers roleplay.  Each house in Achaea should be a formulation of their own ideas of what their roleplay is and not base it upon a supposed classes idea of what it is. 

In an ideal world, each House would determine its own identity and defining characteristics. In practise, many Houses have based themselves around ideas like "unity", "respect", "loyalty", and "pursuit of perfection". Go through and read each House's help file where they've written their own blurb, these ideas come up repeatedly. All of these ideas are utterly meaningless. Any well-functioning House will be united, with members who are loyal, respect one another, and aim to be good at what they do.

That's why I believe Houses need help establishing their defining characteristics, to help them stand strong through multiclass.

Let me use the Naga and Occultists as examples, since they have certain roles like they to play. 

I would argue that you have chosen the Naga and Occultists precisely because they have strongly defined identities, and that it is no coincidence that their identities relate to their class, with both of these Houses being mono-class.

The Naga
Do I have to be a serpent to be a Naga?  Current ideology would dictate YES!  If you think about it though, why?  Well of course the serpent is the sneaky class in Achaea...so you have to be it!  Wait what?  You mean you can't be sneaky without being a serpent?  I complete reject that idea.  You can be a dastardly sneaky son of a bitch while being any class in Achaea.  It is how you choose to create your character.  Want to spy on conversations but don't have the tools (phase) available?  So pay a serpent to do so, have them report back the information.  Blackmail someone with it, get them kicked out of their orgs...anything you want!  You don't have to personally acquire it yourself.  Or maybe you want to be an Infernal and a Naga...WHAT???!?!?  Infernals are suppose to be Knightly and chivalrous!  Why?  If you want to do that join the Maldaathi.  If you want to guarantee a kill at any and all costs, be a Infernal Naga.

You can't be sneaky without being a serpent. You can't slink through the shadows and stab someone in the back, you can't steal from people (effectively), you can't phase into someone's city and assassinate them and evade away.

You can imitate it as various other classes, with tools like shroud and blackwind, but this is a stretch.

You recommend that the Naga open itself to non-serpent members, who would then... pay people who are serpents to achieve their goals. I have trouble accepting that.

You don't need to be a serpent to be devious or duplicitous or scheming, but those are adjectives, not verbs.

Triak

The pervading feeling that I get from you is that a class defines your character.  I see the class a toolkit that you can use to help define your character.  Ultimately you as the player choose your direction, not what your AB files say.

There are many examples within Achaea that defy your reasoning about classes having themes you have to follow.  (as you referred to devotion classes).  People have played fallen priests and lost devotion, grove users play in Mhaldor about bending nature to their will.  A pretty vivid example is @Bonko.  He pretty clearly played jester the opposite of every other jester in the game.  He was Heath Ledger's Joker, not Jack Nicholson's.

As far as being sneaky and not being a serpent.  Twilight's order was the most powerful thing around 10 years ago.  They were damn sneaky and they weren't all serpents.  Sneaky doesn't mean "I have access to phase".  You are once again describing things in a tool kit of a profession as defining a personality trait.

Iocun

The thing is, a division of houses into roles like "fighter" or "scholar" isn't inherently better than one into "occultist" and "runewarden". Whatever distinction fits a character better is highly personal. "Fighter" may be a term that describes one character very well, yet another primarily sees himself as an occultist with interests in all these roles, enjoying scholarly pursuits quite as much as fighting or conducting rituals. 

As much as you might hate being thrown into a house just because of your class, I'd hate being in a "scholar only" house just because I like exploration and be denied to take up the role of a fighter within this as well. Most people don't just do one thing in Achaea, nor should they. You call class a "tool kit", but one might just as well call "merchant" or "being able to be sneaky" a "tool kit" that may not actually be what your character is about, at all.

The point is that houses will probably never be based around the principles that would be most suitable just for your character. While the idea of a merchant house works perfectly fine for the Crown Merchants, other houses are based on certain classes as a fundamental part of their identity, which is just as valid as anything else.

Furthermore, there's the thing of "enforcing" a certain line of house identity. It's nice, in theory, to say that a house can develop its unique ideology and require it from all members. And that may work if the "ideology" is extremely straight-forward such as "sell things and make a profit" or "become the best fighters in the world". But as soon as ideologies become more complex, it can be hard to keep up the same level of house identity, because members will have slightly different ideas about what these ideologies exactly encompass and will thus start giving off a rather fuzzy image to the outside.

Classes on the other hand are something that can be easily enforced by a house and give an immediate impression to the outside. "A house of serpents" gives an immediate image that can't be disrupted by some newbies of that house doing something different, because well - they can't.

Many people try to RP, but most only take it to a certain point, while yet others don't try to RP at all. This makes it extremely hard for houses to display a distinct character to the world unless there either are some mechanical aides such as class restrictions, or an extremely easy-to-understand and striking house ideology.

Personally I would not want to miss more complex, subtle house ideologies, so I'd rather accept class restrictions.

P.S. I also highly disagree with the view that classes are mere sets of skills. Classes have unique histories and are tied to certain lines of thought, canonically.

There's a reason why a knight doesn't use illusions, and the reason isn't just because he happens not to have the ability. The reason is that he never developed the ability, because the mindset behind illusionary trickery goes against the mindset of the knight class. There's a reason why monks do not use weapons, which has to do with their history. There's a reason why blademasters can't be mounted or do not envenom their blades, which, again, has to do with the entire spirit of the class and not merely considerations for combat balance. 

Classes in Achaea do actually have certain traits though, some more strongly, some less, which makes them far more than mere skill pools, and which enriches Achaea as a whole. Sure, not every single magi or occultist might be more scholarly than every single runewarden, but in principle, they would be expected to be. Not every serpent must be sly, but they would expected to be. And I very much would expect every bard to have some sort of artistic talent and not just be a voicecraft-using combat machine.

Nizaris

Two thoughts on the topic of house identity:

(1) As much as I'd love for Nizaris to dual class Apostate and Alchemist, and this idea would prevent that: perhaps make it so that the only classes able to be multiclassed to by members of a house are those already accepted by the house.

(2) Maintain two lists of classes accepted by each house: primary and secondary. All members of a house must be a member of at least one of the primary classes accepted by the house. Their multiclass choices, however, are limited to either any of the primary classes, or any of the secondary classes. The secondary classes are chosen by the admin such that they are loosely affiliated with the ideals of each house. The goal is to retain some of the best reasons to have a limited assortment of classes accepted by each house. It makes training newbies easier with a smaller number of classes accepted, and therefore larger population in each class; ideals are inextricably tied to activities; it eliminates or reduces class overlap, etc. Multiclassing should definitely be limited in some way to progression in the game. Characters should have time to establish their own personal identity in their primary class before expanding it to include a secondary class.

Examples

Congregation

Primary Classes: Apostate, Bard, Jester, Magi, Shaman

Secondary Classes: Monk (religion), Alchemist (ritual), Serpent (evil priestly assassin)

Maldaathi

Primary Classes: Infernal, Runewarden

Secondary Classes: Bard (sword), Blademaster (sword), Monk (warrior)

Naga

Primary Classes: Serpent

Secondary Classes: Shaman (dark, enigmatic), Apostate (See Shaman)

Ebon Fist

Primary Classes: Alchemist, Blademaster, Monk

Secondary Classes: Magi (focus on mental aspect), Shaman (Spirit), Infernal and Runewarden (Physical aspect)

Nim

Blujixapug said:

Classes permit certain activities. You cannot commune with Nature unless you are a druid, sentinel, or sylvan. You cannot perform necromancy unless you are an infernal or apostate. Knights forge weapons and armour, and train falcons. Sentinels summon woodland creatures. Monks attack with their fists and feet. Occultists travel beyond reality to conduct business with horrifying aberrations. These activities influence character identity.

Do be careful with this argument, though. When you step outside of raw coded abilities (like, BBT) and into the realm of roleplay and character identity, there is a lot of wiggle room.

For example, plenty of classes could commune with nature - maybe not quite as directly, but monks could meditate upon it, and consider their mastery of Kaido to be related to their oneness with the natural world. Blademasters have the most elements ever, and Magi at least have the ones found on this side of oblivion, so they could easily tie their elementalism with the natural world and its primal forces.

In Achaea, you play one of those larger-than-life characters: an adventurer. Not one of the regular goons running a cabbage stall, or doing accounting for the Imperiate.

You vastly underestimate Cyrene. Vastly.

Also, I think people are silly for wanting to hardcode anti-apostatepriests, when there are already controls for that in-game which probably suffice. At best, it might be cool if the powers that be had a magic thing that told them when a priest multi-classed into something dubious so they knew to react.

Also, please no requiring leveling. I'd personally love it if I could, upon reaching level 100, multi-class into Serpent instead of Dragon (I am not too fond of large scaly things, sorry!), but it would be just absurd if I had to reach level 100 to multi-class.

Also, I personally think that the most dangerous thing about removing the OOC class limits on houses is the houses themselves. It would be up to them and them alone to maintain their own identity. If there are no careful regulations in place to protect them from collapsing, my personal suggestion is to let houses collapse for real. If they're dying and refuse to stop, demote them to a high clan, and then maybe just a normal clan. Let evolution take it's course! Mwahahaha!

That said, even if the houses themselves are not protected from... well... themselves, there should still be some kind of system or something that makes sure newbies get into good places that can teach them good things. No one should have to suffer 18 year old Naga priests just because the Nagaraja thought it'd be hilarious! No one!

Wysteria

I can't make much comment on the mechanic side of things, but I'm all for multi-classing (of +1 class only) and letting the Houses/Cities RP out the laws that will determine what classes its people may learn.

It'll make traits and the stats a nightmare to work with now but I'm sure people can sort that for themselves. In terms of personal RP I would actually love to be able to be Sylvan/Magi since that'll really get into the roots of the Sylvan House and back to my first class I started out with.

Being a BM Sylvan would be an odd mix but hey, if I held four different jobs in four different industries over my uni days without a hitch, then it should be ok in Achaea. I see classes as a vocation first (job) which then becomes a way of life (career).

Aktillum

@Nizaris What about rogues? Or should Houses be the only way someone can multiclass? I think that would throw Achaea back into the problem of guilds having a strangle-hold on access to class abilities.

Nizaris

@Aktillium: For rogues, I'd simply say force them to only respect the faction spheres:

8.2.3 Houses, Classes, Restrictions, and Conflict

   Sphere     Conflicts with these Classes
   --------   ----------------------------------------
   HELL       Druid, Paladin, Priest, Sentinel, Sylvan
   EMPYREAN   Apostate, Infernal, Occultist
   NATURE     Apostate, Infernal
   CHAOS      Paladin, Priest

Iocun

I'd simplify the matter into requiring housed people to choose their primary class from the "allowed classes" pool only, but be allowed to later choose a second one from all the ones the city allows. Rogues could match all classes the city allows.

Otherwise we'll either have the issue of rogues being seriously disadvantaged and thus joining houses only for the sake of multiclassing without caring for the house at all, or rogues having no restrictions at all and thus having an unfair advantage over housed members. Allowing any city-allowed class as the second class in houses would be an incentive for people to join a house for RP reasons, as well as to get initial help and such, while granting them the ability to later branch out without having to quit the house again. This might be a great way to encourage people to actually stick in the house that "brought them up", rather than quitting just because they want to try out something else.

I believe this would be an adequate mixture of retaining the idea of "house classes" (since there would still be a restricted class list for joining newbies), yet still giving people some individual freedom within the limits of their own city.

Blujixapug

Triak said:

The pervading feeling that I get from you is that a class defines your character.  I see the class a toolkit that you can use to help define your character.  Ultimately you as the player choose your direction, not what your AB files say.

That's also how I feel. Class is a strong aspect of what defines your character, but it is just part of what defines your character. It does this both through the thematic associations of each class, and through the actions classes mechanically permit you to perform.

Iocun said:

The thing is, a division of houses into roles like "fighter" or "scholar" isn't inherently better than one into "occultist" and "runewarden". Whatever distinction fits a character better is highly personal. "Fighter" may be a term that describes one character very well, yet another primarily sees himself as an occultist with interests in all these roles, enjoying scholarly pursuits quite as much as fighting or conducting rituals. 

I believe diving Houses into roles like "Occultist" and "Warden" is better precisely because those definitions are more specific. I prefer "fire wizard" or "psionicist" to "scholar", I prefer "beastmaster" or "holy knight" to "warrior", I prefer "druid of the elk" or "night witch" to "ritualist". The specificity and innate imagery and connotations of those concepts make them stronger, more unique, and more interesting than general terms.

Many classes could fit into a "fire wizard" or "beastmaster" or "elk druid" House.

I am not arguing against multiclass. Rather, I believe Houses will need help to maintain strong identities when class associations no longer serve to define them. For "Warden" to continue to mean "Warden" when they are no longer knights but monks, mages, serpents, and jesters.

Iocun said:

Furthermore, there's the thing of "enforcing" a certain line of house identity. It's nice, in theory, to say that a house can develop its unique ideology and require it from all members. And that may work if the "ideology" is extremely straight-forward such as "sell things and make a profit" or "become the best fighters in the world". But as soon as ideologies become more complex, it can be hard to keep up the same level of house identity, because members will have slightly different ideas about what these ideologies exactly encompass and will thus start giving off a rather fuzzy image to the outside.

I agree with this. But I do not view this as an argument against complex House ideologies. (I'm not suggesting you do, either.) This is precisely the reason I believe Houses will need some help to reinforce their identities.

Nim said:

I think people are silly for wanting to hardcode anti-apostatepriests, when there are already controls for that in-game which probably suffice.

The in-game controls have historically not sufficed, which is why hard-coded measures against people holding necromancer + druid or priest + occultist are necessary.

Nizaris

Iocun said:

I'd simplify the matter into requiring housed people to choose their primary class from the "allowed classes" pool only, but be allowed to later choose a second one from all the ones the city allows. Rogues could match all classes the city allows.

Otherwise we'll either have the issue of rogues being seriously disadvantaged and thus joining houses only for the sake of multiclassing without caring for the house at all, or rogues having no restrictions at all and thus having an unfair advantage over housed members. Allowing any city-allowed class as the second class in houses would be an incentive for people to join a house for RP reasons, as well as to get initial help and such, while granting them the ability to later branch out without having to quit the house again. This might be a great way to encourage people to actually stick in the house that "brought them up", rather than quitting just because they want to try out something else.

I believe this would be an adequate mixture of retaining the idea of "house classes" (since there would still be a restricted class list for joining newbies), yet still giving people some individual freedom within the limits of their own city.

So long as we're negotiating ...

What about a pre-determined list of acceptable combinations (as Naga-knights don't make sense), with house leaders free to make exceptions on a case-by-case basis for other classes supported by the city? Basically, no permission needed for the pre-approved classes; hard-coded permission system for those not pre-approved.

Iocun

I'd be fine with requiring house leader permission.

Shibumi

@Sarapis I am feeling little against a multi classing system presented in this way. As far as I understand, this type of multi classing system would simply grant the player the possibility to switch between classes, but not to use different classes abilities at the same time. I am not sure if it worth the effort. Sure, it is better to have the ability to change class with no penalties after you embraced it, than resorting to poor alts. So, unless you go for a remort system, I do not think it is really worth the effort. Also, I have seen class change with no RP at all. This is just my opinion. Everybody have a nice day!

Satsumi

Iocun said:

I'd simplify the matter into requiring housed people to choose their primary class from the "allowed classes" pool only, but be allowed to later choose a second one from all the ones the city allows. Rogues could match all classes the city allows.

Otherwise we'll either have the issue of rogues being seriously disadvantaged and thus joining houses only for the sake of multiclassing without caring for the house at all, or rogues having no restrictions at all and thus having an unfair advantage over housed members. Allowing any city-allowed class as the second class in houses would be an incentive for people to join a house for RP reasons, as well as to get initial help and such, while granting them the ability to later branch out without having to quit the house again. This might be a great way to encourage people to actually stick in the house that "brought them up", rather than quitting just because they want to try out something else.

I believe this would be an adequate mixture of retaining the idea of "house classes" (since there would still be a restricted class list for joining newbies), yet still giving people some individual freedom within the limits of their own city.

I pretty much agree with this. Personally, Satsu is a Paladin, and a Warden. However, she would love to be an Alchemist, as well. Admittedly, mostly for the Alchemist curatives, but also for the RP... There are times when I'm on lately when there are, quite literally, ten other Citizens around, as well. If none of them are Alchemist, or Priest, or Runewarden/Shaman, it makes it difficult to get buffs for hunting, which make it difficult to reach Dragon and trans. As someone who (unless circumstances change) will never be able to use irl money to buy credits/gold/arties, it makes it just a bit harder to get there.

That makes the whole "200 credits for the first class, 400 for the second, etc" pretty much moot for me. Although, it would be much easier to get gold ICly with two classes that can perform needed skills (forging and curatives), which makes it easier to get credits... If, to get that second skill set you had to pay creds, it would be pretty much impossible for me. I've played on and off for nearly... four years now? And after the first year, I've had thoughts about how awesome it would be if we could multi-class. Things like Priest/Alchemist, or Paladin/Alchemist, or Bard/Shaman, or Monk/Blademaster... I understand the whole negative thing about Occultist/Priest, or Infernal/Paladin. I understand and agree. If you're an Infernal, you support Evil, and Paladin, Good. You can't really support both unless you're 'Neutral'. But personally, I don't see why we can't have a Paladin/Alchemist? I know that Sylvans can only join Eleusis, but Alchy's are pretty much all over Cyrene- rather, there products are.

To cut my rambling short, I agree with the whole, Primary class is one your House accepts, and the secondary is one your City approves. But I'd like it not to be credit purchased... maybe the level thing I read up there? And I probably agree with the two class limit... But I'd really like it if we could keep knowledge of both classes at the same time.

Or if we had that talisman thingy (someone mentioned it in a previous post), I'd like it if it came with the class ability. Maybe... Level 55, you gain a second class, and automatically gain the tali-artie to switch safely between the two? And then, you'd only need to spend credits to learn the three skills, not buy the abiltiy, then the lessons, and the talisman.

But this all comes from a person strictly kept to the in-game ways of gaining credits and stuff, but if there's one, there's more. And that's one of the reasons I adore Achaea. Everything that you can buy with irl money, you can get (if you work hard) in-game. It just takes longer. :P

Iocun

I don't think it needs to be restricted with huge costs. Nor do I think it should be strictly a bashing reward.

It could still be cool if it could be tied to reaching some sort of milestone though, but perhaps it could be any of several possible milestones. E.g. make it possible to select a second class upon fulfilling either of those requirements:

- Attaining the, say, 6th house rank.

- Attaining the 5th city rank.

- Level 99, can be alternatively chosen instead of becoming a dragon.

- Becoming a Haidionic Seeker in the Fellowship of Explorers.

That way, there would be several roads towards multiclass, not all with the same difficulty, but there would be something achievable for almost any type of character. The house rank requirement is probably the easiest one of these, which would encourage being housed, but being a rogue wouldn't make it impossible.

Naisar

The small number of classes that share a optimal (or even decent) race/trait spec for 1v1 is going to heavily limit your multiclass options when layered on top of factional restrictions - if you're looking for more 1v1 options that is, which I realize many aren't.  But without a second spec option, as an Eleusian strength-specced Runewarden, there's no way I can viably play an aff class, which ideally is what I'd want to do- have two very different classes to choose from.

Satsumi

True. And I think it'd actually be good for it to be HR, or CR. Most Ranking I've seen (HR, that is) is based on how well you know the game/city/house. And it could also work promoting RP... But I don't think I'd like to choose between Dragon or a second class. Maybe a level or two before/beyond, as an encouragement/reward? Ah, but then, I suppose Dragon is an encouragement/reward in and of itself. But having multiple ways of gaining a second class works with me.

Sanaki

Personally I'm stoked about multiclassing primarily because I despise playing multiple characters, both for investment reasons and for the lack of typical multi-character drama and such (could elaborate, but this isn't the place for gripes).

Orchist

On the subject of houses.  Class makeup in a house (I still hate the name house... bring back guilds!!!) has everything to do with the identity of a house in my opinion.  Opening up houses to random classes would be an even dumber decision than changing guilds to houses was.  This has the potential to be a great addition to the game.  A way someone could switch back to a class they have spent money and time on without having to do it all over again.  This also has the potential to be game changing in such a way that it alienates an entire older generation of players into permanent retirement. For instance, I have one character.  That character has been in the Maldaathi and Mhaldor since both were formed.  I've endured some really horrible game decisions in the past, and been privileged to be a part of some of the really great changes along the way that have enhanced the game.   However, day the Maldaathi becomes a guild that accepts classes that don't make sense from a RP standpoint, is likely the end for me personally.  I don't think I could sit in a guild with jester knights and feel connected to the game any longer.  Unless I slip into using Achaea as a great big OOC chat room like many that use it as a chat room with a mini game.  

Multiclassing is a good idea.  If it's used to prevent people from losing permanently something they have worked hard for in the past.  Allow them to switch back to a previous class once every 10 years or so and only when they have left the guild that doesn't allow that class.  Don't let this change guilds/houses.  

Tael

One thing that keeps bugging me in this and the previous conversation is the tone of most of the posts that have been discussing character identity and class RP when trying to point out that they aren't necessarily identical concepts.

While class is certainly not the integral part of all characters, it's really silly to say that it isn't an integral part of a lot of characters. Yes, you can have a character that isn't "defined" by their class, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater - a lot of people, perhaps even a majority, use their class as the central foundation of their RP. A lot of people play games like this to play a "knight" or a "thief" archetype. For a lot of players, being a "knight" is the central part of their RP around which all of the rest is built. Maybe the game would be better if that weren't the case, maybe they should be forced to change their RP to be less class-centric (assuming they want to keep up with multiclass characters mechanically*), but even if we grant that (and I'm not at all sure we want to), it's an awfully risky plan to just put it in and hope people manage to discover how to effect that change in RP for themselves.

Which is to say, the fact that it's possible to play a character that isn't pigeon-holed by their class doesn't mean it isn't something we should be worried about. It's certainly something that should be taken into consideration when designing the multiclass system.

And that goes for houses too. There are certainly houses that are largely independent of the classes they allow, but there are quite a few that are emphatically not. We don't want to throw those houses under the bus because it is, in theory, possible for houses in general to have a class-independent RP. We've already seen the results of this with a few houses that really faltered when autoclass went in - the Bards were fine because they had a core identity that didn't have a lot to do with class membership, but I watched the Mojushai get hit hard. Similarly, the Grand Merchant Collective is going to be fine with pretty much any multiclass system, but the serpent houses are either going to have to make some sweeping RP changes or hamstring themselves mechanically-speaking*. If you want more examples of what this can do, look to Aetolia - you have guilds like the Cabalists, which have RP that is entirely based on affiliation with a particular class, yet because it's a suboptimal class for a lot of things, all the members are running around as entirely unrelated classes. From the time I spent there, there was no indication that the mere introduction of multiclass got them to rethink their guild - instead they all just acted as though they were exclusively cabalists and never brought up the fact that virtually none of them were ever acting as that class. It created an ugly situation where players treated the classes as purely mechanical. This is a really unsatisfying state of affairs and I would hate to see the same thing happen to the more class-aligned houses.

Which is to say, the fact that it's possible for a house to avoid RP that depends on classes doesn't mean that it isn't something we should be worried about. It's certainly something that should be taken into consideration when designing the multiclass system.

In neither case does it preclude any sort of multiclass, but in both cases it's going to pay to try to mitigate the damage somehow. It won't do to just say "Oh, that's not a problem." because it isn't a problem for some characters and some houses. They're probably problems that can be solved, but saying that there are solutions, putting in changes, and hoping everything shakes out has worked poorly in the past.

* Let's not kid ourselves that this doesn't make characters stronger. The fact that they can only have one class at a time doesn't eliminate the power creep this introduces. I don't think power creep is really a problem in this regard, but being able to switch between a bashing class and a 1v1 class and a raid class makes you considerably more capable than someone who only has one of those. If you're raiding and you have the option to turn one of your blademasters into a third magi so you can spin cata, that's potentially huge (I'm pretty excited to see what happens to raid strategy when it isn't quite so dictated by the class composition of the people online).

Kresslack

I go out for beers and questionawomen and come back to essays. I'm going to have to catch up in the morning, too much thinking right now. All I know is, multi-classing is going to be weird. In regards to Houses, some I would say accept only one type of class, not wholly on the class itself, but the.history that have brought that House together. Maldaathi, Occultists, Naga, these are Houses that limit their class acceptance based more on tradition, but certainly also practicality. We tried the whole multi-classing House thing with the Shadowsnakes, and as much as people said it wouldn't revert back to a Serpent only House, it did, based on historical relevance.

Are Serpents the only ones who can be sneaky? Certainly not. Blademasters, Occultists, and more can be sneaky. Does this make them relevant for consideration into Houses that have operating under a certain model for many years, even from the point of founding? Absolutely not. I don't expect that much would change in regards to the pure Houses. After all, multi-classing may be seen as a dilution of a particular class, which a lot of old and well founded Houses may frown upon.

Something to consider.

Iocun

Tael said:

* Let's not kid ourselves that this doesn't make characters stronger. The fact that they can only have one class at a time doesn't eliminate the power creep this introduces. I don't think power creep is really a problem in this regard, but being able to switch between a bashing class and a 1v1 class and a raid class makes you considerably more capable than someone who only has one of those. If you're raiding and you have the option to turn one of your blademasters into a third magi so you can spin cata, that's potentially huge

That's true, but in this particular situation, it's not actually a character that gets stronger, but an entire group composition. Cities with a huge populace can already cover most needed functions, so in a sense this might be an interesting equalizer for cities with few present members at the time of a raid.

Also keep in mind that the existence of multiclass (hopefully) won't mean that everybody suddenly has access to every class.

Shibumi

@nim @shirzae I will get more disagreements, however I would like to share the following thoughts on a general level:

1) multi classes can be RP well, for sure. Sometimes, is easier to have one main class and one secondary. It is easier for RP purposes;

2) some classes in Achaea conflicts with each other, so this should be addressed properly, and this seems clear to all of us;

3) multi classes can be disciplined with the Houses.

4) multi classes character in pen and paper RPG could not become as proficient as the single class character.

Being said this I think that:

1) Probably players are avid to multiclass to have make their character stronger. I would love to be a BM too, or a Paladin, for example;

2) In order not to disrupt the game mechanics, class switching cannot possibly be instantaneous. So I do not understand what this would be different than what we have now, save for the penalties;

3) multi class allows players to invest more credit in their character more, and this is good for supporting the game.

4) I have not the slightest idea how to insert a decent multi class system in the game!

Ok, you can shoot me if you must.

Aktillum

All this talk of multi-classing destroying House RP is pretty funny. Let's quickly check the top 5 of HOUSE INFLUENCE:

The Occultists = Occultist only

The Warlocks of the Rising Phoenix = Magi, Shaman, Runewarden, and Alchemist

The Sentinels of Nature = Sentinel, Monk, Serpent, Runewarden, and Jester

The Ashura = Monk, Blademaster and Bard

The Arcane Kindred = Magi and Alchemist

The Sylvanic Fellowship = Sylvan, Magi, Bard, Shaman, and Blademaster

At the very bottom of the list (barring the Merchants and CIJ, Houses who are not related to any particular factions) you have the Spiritwalkers, aka the former Shaman guild. A House with a strong focus on ritual / shamanistic RP, yet is basically invisible IG and at one point in time, had a 23 year old House leader.

It would seem, despite whatever classes a House allows (what the hell do Jesters have to do with Nature?) that popular Houses remain popular because of strong leadership, membership, and just generally being a tight-knit group of like-minded people.

Iocun

Not quite sure what you're trying to say with that. Nobody has even brought up house success as a topic of concern. What does this have to do with anything?

Strata

I (as a player) see the light! And I can't wait for multi-classing. Strata, however, is a serpent supremacist.

Dunn

Triak said:

.  You can draw circles in salt and die on the altars of Babel just as easily as a runewarden or monk.

Or blow up children. Very nice post.
Also, @Sarapis, ETA on this? I have the class change craving.

Geraint

Class doth not define the who I am in the game, just the skills I use. Politicians in Achaea are sneaky and they're not all Serpents!

However, I think this will either really starve some Houses of members - possibly making some useless. It may be better to just break some smaller Houses down and fold them in to other organizations.

Blujixapug

Aktillum said:

All this talk of multi-classing destroying House RP is pretty funny.

I didn't say it would destroy House RP. I said Houses would benefit from assistance in strengthening and maintaining their identities. You're picking a fight where there isn't one.